IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on: 20.01.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 10.02.2025 DR. J.S. MANDHOK ......Petitioner VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 3 to release the retirement/pensionary benefits to the petitioner and further to quash the order/letter dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure P-9) vide which the respondents have decided to release the pensionary benefits without any retrospective effects or arrears, the petitioners have approached this court.

Facts

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner- Dr. J.S. Madhok joined the office of the Oriental Insurance company of 03.10.1984 as Assistant Administrative Officer at Regional Office Chandigarh. He was in regular service for about 23 years and was routinely promoted during his tenure. On 16.05.2007, while serving as Senior Divisional Manager at Bhatinda, he opted for Voluntary Retirement and also gave a cheque no. 000158 of Rs. 1,03,872/- being the salary in lieu of 3 month notice period, as per the settled rules.

3. That the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was however not accepted and the notice period was considered as a period of absence and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report of charge being proved, where after, vide order dated 22.12.2008, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of “removal of service which shall not be disqualification for future employment”, against the petitioner.

4. That the petitioner specifically submitted that he never remained absent from the duties from 21.05.2007 as he had already handed over the charge to his senior most officer at the relevant time Mr. Charanjit Singh, as per the rules, procedures and service norms on having opted for retirement under the Voluntarily Retirement of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 and as per the instructions of the respondent company.

5. That despite passing of an order of penalty against him, the petitioner was none-the-less entitled to his retirement benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encasement, PF etc. but the same were not disbursed to him. Further, the petitioner was also entitled to Compassionate Allowance under rule 32 of the Pension Scheme 1995.

6. That the petitioner made numerous visits to the office of the respondent company requesting it for release of his retirement/pensionary benefits but yet the respondent company released only an amount of Rs. 5,49,087/- qua the petitioner’s own voluntary contribution of provident fund and Rs. 3,22,679/- against gratuity vide cheque no. 881419. The respondent company also assured the petitioner that the remaining benefits shall also be released at the earliest.

7. That the petitioner sent numerous representations dated 24.04.2010, 14.01.2012, 04.02.2013, and 01.05.2014 requesting for the release of his remaining benefits. However, when no action was taken upon them by the respondent company, the petitioner approached this court vide CWP No. 15957 of 2014 in which notice of motion was issued on 12.08.2014. Vide order dated 30.03.2017, the writ petition was disposed off by this court and it directed the respondents to decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner within a period of two months.

8. That after the directions were issued by this court, the petitioner approached the office of the respondents with a certified copy of the aforesaid order and submitted his application dated 10.04.2017, requesting the release of his pensionary benefits.

9. That the respondent company vide letter dated 20.06.2017 informed the petitioner that after considering his case, compassionate allowance equal to half of the pension, which would hav